|
Forums118
Topics9,234
Posts196,242
Members1,327
| |
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
5 registered members (dedication, Karen Y, Daryl, 2 invisible),
2,513
guests, and 16
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Blood of Christ
#11938
12/12/04 08:32 PM
12/12/04 08:32 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
quote:
Kevin, none of the views you outlined take into consideration the fact Jesus offered to die for us before Adam and Eve were created, before they sinned. Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, which existed before Adam and Eve were created. I believe the Godhead agreed among Themselves, before the first free moral agent was created, that Jesus would become a human to live and die to redeem us from the death penalty. I also believe this decision is the basis upon which They chose to go ahead and create free moral agents anyhow, knowing they would sin, and that many of them would have to be punished and destroyed in the lake of fire.
The way you're putting this doesn't coincide with what happened. God knew of the possibility of sin and made provision for it. Christ was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world because the grace and mercy of God's character which the Plan of Salvation demonstrates was always a part of God's character. However, the Plan did not get instituted until sin actually occurred.
Note the following:
quote:
Sorrow filled heaven as it was realized that man was lost and that the world which God had created was to be filled with mortals doomed to misery, sickness, and death, and that there was no way of escape for the offender. The whole family of Adam must die. I then saw the lovely Jesus and beheld an expression of sympathy and sorrow upon His countenance. Soon I saw Him approach the exceeding bright light which enshrouded the Father. Said my accompanying angel, "He is in close converse with His Father." The anxiety of the angels seemed to be intense while Jesus was communing with His Father. Three times He was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time He came from the Father we could see His person. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and trouble, and shone with a loveliness which words cannot describe. He then made known to the angelic choir that a way of escape had been made for lost man; that He had been pleading with His Father, and had obtained permission to give His own life as a ransom for the race, to bear their sins, and take the sentence of death upon Himself, thus opening a way whereby they might, through the merits of His blood, find pardon for past transgressions, and by obedience be brought back to the garden from which they were driven. Then they could again have access to the glorious, immortal fruit of the tree of life to which they had now forfeited all right.
Then joy, inexpressible joy, filled heaven, and the heavenly choir sang a song of praise and adoration. They touched their harps and sang a note higher than they had done before, because of the great mercy and condescension of God in yielding up His dearly Beloved to die for a race of rebels. Then praise and adoration was poured forth for the self-denial and sacrifice of Jesus, in consenting to leave the bosom of His Father, and choosing a life of suffering and anguish, and an ignominious death, that He might give life to others.
Said the angel, "Think ye that the Father yielded up His dearly beloved Son without a struggle? No, no." It was even a struggle with the God of heaven, whether to let guilty man perish, or to give His darling Son to die for them. (EW 127)
You're way of presenting what happens, to my view, makes a mockery of this. Under your perspective, in what sense could God have had a "struggle"?
It is clear from Early Writings that the Plan of Salvation was actually put into effect after sin occurred on earth, or you've just got God and Jesus putting on a show, a bunch of make-believe theater.
|
|
|
Re: Blood of Christ
#11939
12/12/04 09:45 PM
12/12/04 09:45 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Mike: Tom, yes, of course, Jesus died of a broken heart. Tom: Good! This is the point I've been trying to make for some time. Regarding Jesus and the 144,000, I haven't disagreed that there is a similarity. I have asked you what the similarity is. I haven't seen that you've mentioned it yet. How are the 144,000 and Christ similar in mission? What is it that causes the consternation of the 144,000? (this part is different than what caused Christ's consternation) Mike: Jesus earned the right to own our sins and second death when, on the cross, He cried, It is finished. Tom: What was finished? (Please see "It Is Finished" in DA) Mike: Our sins and second death are at this moment quarantined, within the blood of Jesus, in the heavenly sanctuary, where they are awaiting eradication in the lake of fire, upon the head of Satan. Tom: Sin is an act of volition, right? Something in our minds, which finds completion in a thought, word or deed. How does God quarantine our thoughts, words and deeds in the Heavenly Sanctuary? What does that mean? Mike: Personifying the law is not an unusual way to address this issue. Tom: You've taken personification of the law to a whole new level. You use expressions that make it appear that you view God to be subservient to His law. For example, "Yes, it is in God’s nature to forgive, but it is not in the law’s nature to forgive." So God would like to forgive us, but the Law won't allow Him to. This doesn't make any sense. Mike: I believe the heart of our disagreement as to why Jesus had to taste and consume our sins and second death on the cross is because we do not agree on the punishment aspect of the second death. Tom: I think the heart of our disagreement is that your view of God's participation in the Great Controversy, beginning with creation, continuing with the entrance of sin and the fall of man, continuing with the cross, and culminating at the second death, is arbitrary. I see this in virtually everything you write. This is why you find yourself so often saying things in contradiction to the Spirit of Prophesy and saying, "I don't why" this or "I can't expalin that" and so on. I appreciate that you're trying to put together coherent theory. That's a worthwhile goal. If you started with the presupposition that God is not arbitrary and worked from there, I think you would find success. But an arbitrary God can only lead to an arbitrary theology. Mike: You seem to believe eternal death is merely the consequences of sinning, of being separated from God, and not that it is considered a form of punishment. Tom: You say "merely" as if it were a small thing. quote:
To sin, wherever found, "our God is a consuming fire." Heb. 12:29. In all who submit to His power the Spirit of God will consume sin. But if men cling to sin, they become identified with it. Then the glory of God, which destroys sin, must destroy them. (DA 107)
This is a description of what sin does. It kills. This is why God warns us of it. It doesn't tell us, "The soul that sinneth, I shall kill." but "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." Calling the death which sin inflicts a punishment is fine. The point is that it is not arbitrary. Sin causes death because it is deadly. Your view doesn't seem to think sin is dangerous in and of itself, except that God arbitrarily punishes it.
Mike: You believe you understand why the life and death of Jesus fully satisfied the holy and just demands of the law, and yet you deny the penalty and punishment phase of justice and retribution.
Tom: You're mischaracterizing my position. I do not deny the penalty and punishment phase of justice and retribution. I've never said that.
Mike: Death, in all reality, is freedom from the punishment, not the punishment itself.
Tom: ??? I'm totally confused by what you're trying to say here. The wages of sin is death. Or, equivalently, the penalty of sin is death. The punishment is death. Death is the punishment. I've got no clue what you're saying here.
Mike: quote from SOP:
quote:
God has given in His word decisive evidence that He will punish the transgressors of His law. Those who flatter themselves that He is too merciful to execute justice upon the sinner, have only to look to the cross of Calvary. The death of the spotless Son of God testifies that "the wages of sin is death," that every violation of God's law must receive its just retribution. Christ the sinless became sin for man. He bore the guilt of transgression, and the hiding of His Father's face, until His heart was broken and His life crushed out. All this sacrifice was made that sinners might be redeemed. In no other way could man be freed from the penalty of sin. And every soul that refuses to become a partaker of the atonement provided at such a cost must bear in his own person the guilt and punishment of transgression. {GC 539.3}
From this we see:
1) God will punish transgressors of His law.
2) The cross proves that sin will meet its punishment.
3) Christ's death gives an example of what that punishment is:
a) Bearing the guilt of transgression
b) Bearing the hiding of the Father's face
c) Until heart is broken and life is crushed out
4) Only by Christ's death could man be freed from the penalty of sin
5) Everyone who refuses to become a partaker of the atonement will bear in his own person the guilt and punishment of sin.
This is exactly what I've been saying! Note from MB 116
quote:
We should not try to lessen our guilt by excusing sin. We must accept God's estimate of sin, and that is heavy indeed. Calvary alone can reveal the terrible enormity of sin. If we had to bear our own guilt, it would crush us.
The wicked refuse to partake in the atonement, meaning they refuse to be reconciled to God ("atonement" means "at-one-ment"), meaning they must in the end bear the guilt of their own sin themselves. The guilt crushes them, just as it says in MB 116, and just as it says it did to Christ in the GC quote. Sin will do to them what it did to Christ. They bear their own guilt and receive the punishment for sin.
Everything in the GC quote agrees with what I've been saying. There's nothing in there about an arbitrary punishment.
|
|
|
Re: Blood of Christ
#11940
12/12/04 10:04 PM
12/12/04 10:04 PM
|
|
|
Mike wrote, quote:
The question is, Did Jesus die the second death? or did He consume and conquer it? This is one of the many places where the sanctuary service is helpful. On the day of atonement, it was the scapegoat that died in the wilderness, which symbolizes the second death.
Yes, Jesus had to suffer the second death on the cross. For the sins of the redeemed to be placed on the scapegoat, Satan, they first have to be transferred to the heavenly sanctuary, for it is from there that they're placed on Satan's head at the end of the Investigative Judgment. How do the sins of the redeemed get there? What is the agent of transfer? The blood of Christ, it is evident. And those sins, the sins of the redeemed, are punished by the second death, which is the death of punishment for sin.
Of course the wicked suffer the second death for their own sins.
Satan will suffer for his own sins, and the sin of causing others to fall; and for the sins of the redeemed which will be transferred onto him. Thus he has an ulterior motive for causing us not to be saved; the more people he can keep from Christ, the less he'll suffer in the lake of fire.
|
|
|
Re: Blood of Christ
#11941
12/12/04 11:56 PM
12/12/04 11:56 PM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
quote:
How do the sins of the redeemed get there? What is the agent of transfer? The blood of Christ, it is evident.
You're just reciting phrases, John. What do the phrases mean?
Sin begins in the mind. It's acting contrary to God's will in thought, word or deed. What does it mean to say that God uses Christ's blood as an agent to transfer these contrary thoughts, words and deeds to the Heavenly Sanctuary?
God is obviously trying to teach us something. What is it?
|
|
|
Re: Blood of Christ
#11942
12/13/04 12:41 AM
12/13/04 12:41 AM
|
|
|
Do you mean, How do the sins actually get transferred from redeemed humans to the heavenly sanctuary, the nuts and bolts of it? That's a mystery beyond our knowledge.
|
|
|
Re: Blood of Christ
#11943
12/13/04 04:47 AM
12/13/04 04:47 AM
|
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
It doesn't make any sense. It's not meant to be taken literally. Sin is not a commodity that can be transferred by blood. It's not a commodity at all. God is trying to teach us something. What is He tring to teach us?
|
|
|
Re: Blood of Christ
#11944
12/13/04 04:59 AM
12/13/04 04:59 AM
|
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,664
Plowing
|
|
Are there not three aspects of sin?
1) the disease of sin
2) the acts of sin
3) the record of sin in the Sanctuary in the Book
I can only see that the only property or commodity that could be transferred, recorded, noted, accounted, held up to the unfallen universe is the record of sin.
|
|
|
Re: Blood of Christ
#11945
12/13/04 11:41 PM
12/13/04 11:41 PM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2020
4500+ Member
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 4,583
USA
|
|
Good, Ikan. I liked your signiture quote as well. Thanks for reminding us of the missions and missionary spirit.
Regarding the blood and substitution, you said above Tom you believe that substitution occurs in terms of Christ's life for your's. Where Prof Maxwell seems to differ with us is in the doctrine that Christ bore our guilt and penalty. Am I right? Do you share his view?
Also, I liked the quote you shared from FW. But regarding the sanctuary, I'd be interested to know what aspects are metaphor and what aspects are real. To my mind the heavenly sanctuary is THE great reality.
|
|
|
Re: Blood of Christ
#11946
12/14/04 12:23 AM
12/14/04 12:23 AM
|
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2020
4500+ Member
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 4,583
USA
|
|
Tom and anyone else: Speaking of blood and the transfer of guilt, there is an unusual statement that Christ makes in Matthew 23 about the transfer of blood guilt and retribution from the wicked father’s to the wicked children. Has anyone given thought to the meaning and implications of Christ’s statement. Here Christ foretells the impending doom of the Jews which typifies the doom of Babylon and the wicked at the end of probation. So let me ask, “Will God indeed place the blood guilt of former generations on the heads of the wicked in the final generation?” quote:
23:32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. . . .
23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
And if He can do this, can He not through the blood of Christ, transfer guilt from the righteous onto the head of Satan?
|
|
|
Re: Blood of Christ
#11947
12/14/04 03:02 AM
12/14/04 03:02 AM
|
Very Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,664
Plowing
|
|
Well, if the "sons" (I don't think this is limited to family blood ties at all)
1) keep the disease of sin, by refusing a new heart
2) repeat the acts of sin
3) then the record of sin in the Sanctuary's Book
will be as black as their "fathers", church, family, cultural or denominational "fathers".
My sins killed Jesus. If I was the only sinner on earth, He would have volunteered to die to prove to me and the angels and the saved universe that sin kills.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
